A would-be casino developer which would like to be chosen to build and run the third Connecticut tribal casino has commissioned a report showing how the gaming tribes and the state would benefit from blunting the effects of the opening of the MGM Springfield in neighboring Massachusetts in fall 2018.
The reports come out as it appears that the state’s gaming tribes, the Mohegans and the Pequots, are close to naming the site for the third casino, somewhere in the larger Hartford area.
The report paid for by Silver Lane Partners, which wants to build a casino in East Hartford and conducted by CBRE Inc. of Philadelphia estimates that such a slots parlor with 1,250 machines would generate $148.3 million with taxes paid to the state of $37.1 million.
Two months ago, the state’s Office of Fiscal Analysis wrote that the state might lose $68.3 million in revenues siphoned off the existing tribal casinos by the MGM Springfield once it opens.
The CBRE report estimates that 83 percent of the money made would be from revenue that would have gone to the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods casinos, and the rest coming from new customers from Connecticut, Western Massachusetts and guests staying in hotels in the Hartford area.
Silver Lane Partners urges erecting a casino as soon as possible, and suggests that a temporary casino would be the best way to steal a march on the MGM Springfield. The report suggests that “speed to market” will matter in nailing down loyalty among patrons by preventing the MGM Springfield from gaining even a temporary toehold in the Hartford market.
Meanwhile MGM is not abandoning its efforts to head the Connecticut gaming tribes off at the courts. Its lawyers are due to appear at the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York City early next week to try to stop the state from authorizing a third casino.
A year behind schedule in naming a site, MMCT (the joint Mohegan-Mashantucket Pequot) is reportedly near to choosing between East Hartford, Windsor Locks, South Windsor, Hartford and East Windsor. The proposed site in East Windsor, a now defunct cinema complex, is 14 miles from Springfield.
22News I-Team got its hands on a report that MMCT sent to some state legislators admitting that they were behind schedule. In September, they wrote: “Although we’re eager to break ground, we only have one chance to do this right. And we have to get it right.”
The states are different in how they treat casino selection. The Bay State requires that each community that is being considered for hosting a casino hold a referendum to gauge support. Connecticut doesn’t have such a requirement.
22 News contacted the Connecticut Airport Authority, which last year was actively promoting a casino at its airport terminal expansion. It has dropped that proposal, but told the news team, “While the Connecticut Airport Authority has withdrawn the two primary sites that were originally proposed for the potential development of a gaming facility in either our ground transportation center or a future Terminal B facility, Bradley International Airport has over 300 acres of developable on-airport property and we would welcome discussions with any entity interested in potential developments on any of those parcels. We are continuing to monitor and review the specifics of the procedural changes to MMCT’s RFP process, and we will fully assess those changes to determine the best path forward for the CAA and Bradley.”
The state’s legislature will begin working again in January, at which time it is expected to take up the issue of authorizing the tribes to build a third casino.
